Hands-on: Multiple users, lock screen widgets round out Android 4.2

A look at the launch-day update that throws us some more yummy jelly beans.

The official Android 4.2 Jelly Bean update began to hit Google's Nexus 7 and Galaxy Nexus devices yesterday, bringing with it multiuser support for tablets, a revamped pull-down notifications panel, a new 10-inch tablet user interface, lock screen widgets, and several other notable features. The lock screen widgets and multiuser features weren't ready in time for our big Android 4.2 review, but with the software update officially live, we went back to get some hands-on time with the new features we didn't have a chance to use before.

Multiuser support

Enlarge/ Tablet owners can create and delete any account at any time, and they can also uninstall users' applications. Any user can change network settings or app permissions. Permissions don't get much more granular than that, though the parental control settings for the Google Play store can be managed on an account-by-account basis.

Users can be created and deleted from the Users area in your tablet's settings. The first person to use the tablet is designated as the tablet owner and can add and delete other accounts at will; network settings and app permissions are universal and shared among all users on the tablet, but all other settings—including wallpapers, home screen and lock screen layouts, PINs, screen brightness, and individual app settings, among others—are unique to each user.

Enlarge/ Switching accounts is done by tapping the round buttons at the bottom of the lock screen.

The new user setup process is more or less identical to the first-time setup routine that you go through when you unbox the tablet: you associate your Google account with the tablet, determine what location settings are enabled, enter your name, and you're ready to go. A brand-new user account with no e-mails, apps, or other configured settings takes up just 12.78MB on our Nexus 7 tablet, though this will quickly increase as other users start to download stuff. Other users' background services also take up a small amount of RAM—though your mileage may vary, we observed usage between 20 and 60 megabytes on our Nexus 7—a fraction of the 1GB or 2GB of RAM in most shipping Android tablets today.

Enlarge/ A new user takes up only a small amount of space at first, but this can rapidly expand as apps and other data are downloaded.

Enlarge/ All of your users' background processes will also consume a small amount of RAM.

Therein lies one of our biggest gripes with Android's multiuser implementation as it stands: every user's apps are segregated from every other user's, even in instances where sharing apps would make sense. Where installing an application like Microsoft Office on a Windows PC will by default make that application available to every user on the computer, Android makes no such allowances. If the tablet owner wants to give other users access to apps that the owner has paid for, he or she would have to sign into Google Play using his or her own credentials. This would also give those other users access to the owner's e-mail, calendar, contacts, and other Google data—an undesirable compromise.

Enlarge/ You can also lock the screen and switch users by tapping your user name in the quick settings panel.

Luckily, apps that have been downloaded for one user don't take up extra storage space when downloaded by a second user. According to Google's documentation, the tablet simulates downloading and installing the app, but doesn't actually keep a second copy of the APK file.

Users also can't share data directly with one another; if you want to transfer a picture to another user's account, you'll have to e-mail it to them or share it through some other third-party service. Even if you plug the device into a PC or Mac, you can only view the media files of the tablet's current user. Switching users with the tablet connected to a computer will unmount the tablet and then remount it to give you access to the other user's files. This is a little annoying from a usability perspective, though from a security perspective it's definitely a nice touch.

Android's new multiuser functionality is a firm step in the right direction: families and coworkers often share these tablets, and this gives users a chance to keep some control after they hand their tablets over. The implementation is still a bit inelegant, however. As it stands, it basically makes one tablet pretend that it's two or more separate devices, putting up a wall that almost completely separates your user accounts from one another. Ideally, we'd like to see some options for sharing apps between users, as you can in PC operating systems.

Improved widgets and lock screen

You can now snap a photo with the camera app or use widgets by swiping either way on the lock screen. Swiping to the right brings up the first widget screen, while swiping to the left lets you use the full camera application. Widgets are limited to Google calendar, a digital clock, Gmail, Messaging, and Sound Search, which is Google Play’s Shazam-like music discovery app. As is standard on the home screen, adding a widget requires you to select it and place it where it would be most useful to you. However, you are limited to one widget per lock screen, without the ability to tack on more than one on each page.

Enlarge/ Swiping to the left from the lock screen brings up the camera application.

You can also swipe up to unlock from either of the lock screens. This function can be finicky if you have set the handset to require facial recognition or pattern input to unlock the phone. When the camera application is engaged, you must first swipe back to the primary lock screen before unlocking the phone. For the other lock screens, a helpful lock icon will appear toward the bottom; simply swipe up to engage the preferred unlocking mechanism.

The immediate accessibility to common features will be very appreciated by multitaskers and fast-movers, but it's a pity that only one widget can be displayed on the lock screen at once, even on tablets. If you have to swipe over many times to get a glance at one particular widget, you might as well unlock the phone and navigate to it directly.

As in Android 4.1, adding widgets to the home screen itself is a little more user-friendly than in past versions. Tap on the Apps screen to add a widget, and other icons will move over if there's room. Unfortunately, unlike iOS, if the home screen is filled to the brim with apps and widget doodads, Android will not allow the placement of anything further, nor will it move things over to other home screens to accommodate.

Enlarge/ Drag a widget onto the screen and Android will move over app icons to accommodate.

Taken together with the other items in our full Android 4.2 review, these features constitute a wide-ranging group of changes belied by the small version number jump and retention of the Jelly Bean moniker. All of the features are welcome additions to Google's mobile operating system, and it's clear that the company is listening to what its users want.

133 Reader Comments

Multiple installs of the same app is a bit silly. Could do with an install for all users option, which would also protect against sharing of private data between accounts. I suppose google/devs miss out on revenue associated with multiple purchases of the same app for the same device running two accounts, but they weren't getting that revenue as things stood anyway.

EDIT: why the down-votes? Assuming subsequent comments are correct, and installing the same app across several accounts doesn't require more disk space, how does that solve the permissions issue? I.e. if you add a second account to your N7 for your little brother, and want to install a game you've paid for for him to play, can you do that without signing in to your google account? Or is the article wrong in that respect too?

"The other problem is one of disk space: if both users on the tablet install the same third-party app, that app is stored on the tablet twice. Especially on the lower-capacity Nexus tablets, space could quickly become a problem."

"To save storage space, Google Play downloads an APK only if it's not already installed by another user on the device. If the app is already installed, Google Play records the new user's installation in the usual way but doesn't download another copy of the app"

"The other problem is one of disk space: if both users on the tablet install the same third-party app, that app is stored on the tablet twice. Especially on the lower-capacity Nexus tablets, space could quickly become a problem."

"To save storage space, Google Play downloads an APK only if it's not already installed by another user on the device. If the app is already installed, Google Play records the new user's installation in the usual way but doesn't download another copy of the app"

You beat me to the punch. This author lost all credibility for this article upon making that statement. The multiuser implementation is well done, so why are you whining about it? Maybe because you don't understand it as well as you think? Hmm.

I think android is getting a lot better, and I think that multiple user accounts are a valuable asset for education settings, but I can't shake the feeling that tablets are starting to suffer from feature-creep.

4.1 already had the function to start Camera Mode and Google Now from the lock screen without unlocking the device.

S3 4.0 has it also, can't recall if stock 4.0 had it or not.

Multi user sounds how Windows will work for user specific data, /Users/username/appdata in Windows. "Multiple users can run the same copy of an APK because the system creates a new instance for each user, including a user-specific data directory."

"The other problem is one of disk space: if both users on the tablet install the same third-party app, that app is stored on the tablet twice. Especially on the lower-capacity Nexus tablets, space could quickly become a problem."

"To save storage space, Google Play downloads an APK only if it's not already installed by another user on the device. If the app is already installed, Google Play records the new user's installation in the usual way but doesn't download another copy of the app"

Thanks for that link - I hadn't seen it. The tablet behaves as if it has installed a second copy of the application when you download it from Google Play, and it also acts as though each separate copy of the app takes up additional space every time it's downloaded. I was going off of that when I made that observation, but I've corrected it.

"The other problem is one of disk space: if both users on the tablet install the same third-party app, that app is stored on the tablet twice. Especially on the lower-capacity Nexus tablets, space could quickly become a problem."

"To save storage space, Google Play downloads an APK only if it's not already installed by another user on the device. If the app is already installed, Google Play records the new user's installation in the usual way but doesn't download another copy of the app"

You beat me to the punch. This author lost all credibility for this article upon making that statement. The multiuser implementation is well done, so why are you whining about it? Maybe because you don't understand it as well as you think? Hmm.

I don't understand their negativity.

I've corrected the factually inaccurate bit of the article, thanks for the heads up.

I'm not sure why "criticism" equals "negativity"? Yes, it's great that Android has multi-user support. We said that. It's absolutely a huge step forward. But until as something as simple as sharing apps between users is worked out, there's still work to do.

Really cool development which, imo, substantially differentiates Android from iOS. Now Google just needs to find a way to advertise this to casual users in a way that doesn't involve robots blowing each other up. This feature is pretty technically advanced but very appealing to casual users. Apple does a great job of advertising these types of features (it just works), and Google has a tendency to shoot itself in the overly-engineered foot.

*edit*The implementation seems pretty good, especially given the lack of distinct installs for shared apps (even if those apps can't be shared without re-installing by multiple users). Hopefully Google absorbs early feedback and improves things with subsequent versions. They've done a great job of that historically, so I plan to pick up a Nexus 10 and contribute to the effort. Not sure it'll replace my iPad completely given my ties (chains?) to iOS, but I'm really excited by what Google is doing with Android.

I suppose google/devs miss out on revenue associated with multiple purchases of the same app for the same device running two accounts, but they weren't getting that revenue as things stood anyway.

It's a difference between Android (and iOS, and BlackBerry, and, well, I don't know about Windows Phone/WinRT) and the way a lot of PC software is licensed. With Android, you own the app, regardless of the machine, so you can install the same app on every device you, the user, own. On a PC, you can (usually) install only one "seat" (a single PC), if you're being true to the licensing agreement and/or the program has some kind of call-home or network license manager.

As such, multiple users on an Android tablet would each have their own app catalogue. This isn't a bad thing: you don't have to wade through another user's collection of apps, nor do they see that, eg, you might've downloaded something embarassing (you don't want KamaSutraPro2000 showing up in your kid's profile next to Cat In The Hat).

Personally, I really like how, on Android, I can buy the same app for my phone and tablet and generally it'll work. It's to the point where I'll actively avoid "HD" or "Tablet" versions of given apps because it seems like gouging.

Thanks for the write-up, I was trying to figure out if the multi user support in 4.2 made sense for my wife and I with my N7 and was finding it hard to get clarification on a lot of little details (disk space/app sharing etc). The inability to share paid apps is definitely disappointing.... That means I have to reserve 1/2 my savegame slots in my Kairosoft games for my wife!

Multiple installs of the same app is a bit silly. Could do with an install for all users option, which would also protect against sharing of private data between accounts. I suppose google/devs miss out on revenue associated with multiple purchases of the same app for the same device running two accounts, but they weren't getting that revenue as things stood anyway.

EDIT: why the down-votes? Assuming subsequent comments are correct, and installing the same app across several accounts doesn't require more disk space, how does that solve the permissions issue? I.e. if you add a second account to your N7 for your little brother, and want to install a game you've paid for for him to play, can you do that without signing in to your google account? Or is the article wrong in that respect too?

My downvote was because developers on Android struggle enough with getting users to buy their apps, that letting entire families share the app with one purchase would not help. I understand users would enjoy that, and perhaps it should be done, but I think Google is incentivizing Android development by helping developers get paid, and that will help end users as well.

Yeah, this ties into a bigger argument about app licensing and stuff. Developers haven't had to worry about per-device licensing on tablets before now because Android and iOS haven't supported multiple users, but I suspect they may have to figure it out soon.

What if someone downloads a movie? Can it be shared?What about access to SD cards?

Supposedly SD cards are virtualized for each user, so that they can't access each other's stuff.

Sharing a movie? nope, won't happen with things the way they are now.

Would it be as easy (albeit a little ridiculous) as ejecting the SD, logging in as a different user, and re-inserting the SD?

It's difficult to say for certain because none of the Nexus devices support SD cards, but as best as I can tell the tablet would silo that data off the same way it does for the local storage. Android's multi-user support really does make one tablet act like it's two entirely separate tablets.

My downvote was because developers on Android struggle enough with getting users to buy their apps, that letting entire families share the app with one purchase would not help. I understand users would enjoy that, and perhaps it should be done, but I think Google is incentivizing Android development by helping developers get paid, and that will help end users as well.

That logic seems a little tortured. Letting families share apps is a potential selling point, or at least a chance to drive more revenue through charging for family packs. If you're going to do user sharing, providing at least the option for app license sharing makes sense.

A subclass of Android users has demonstrated its willingness to pirate anything and everything, and throwing up roadblocks to app adoption just encourages more piracy. Rather than give them another excuse to pirate ("Welp, I can't get what I want, so fuck it, Ima pirate this app!") app license sharing can help devs take money out of additional sources.

My downvote was because developers on Android struggle enough with getting users to buy their apps, that letting entire families share the app with one purchase would not help. I understand users would enjoy that, and perhaps it should be done, but I think Google is incentivizing Android development by helping developers get paid, and that will help end users as well.

For a developer's perspective, how does that situation differ from each family member sharing the same account on the tablet? It doesn't. It's still just one sale.

People will buy apps if they use the platform. People will use the platform if they find it agreeable. People will find a platform agreeable if they can do useful things with it. Multiple user accounts is useful. Restricting apps to individual users on a device is not. Ergo, the restriction may actually harm sales, not help them as you suggest.

Sounds like they need to add an option (for developers) for an app to be available to anyone on the device it's on. And of course, they need to add good functionality to get your app data out of the app.

My downvote was because developers on Android struggle enough with getting users to buy their apps, that letting entire families share the app with one purchase would not help. I understand users would enjoy that, and perhaps it should be done, but I think Google is incentivizing Android development by helping developers get paid, and that will help end users as well.

That's fair enough - I didn't make the comment because I think Android devs are fat cats sat in ivory towers milking the proletariat for their hard earned cash. I was just making the point that from a user's point of view, families NOT being able to share an app between individuals on a single device is a retrograde step. It's also a different model from how they've likely always used their conventional computers. I.e. they can install office on the "family" computer, have a different user account for each family member, and not have to purchase 5 copies of office. My other argument was that this revenue stream is not one that was open to android devs prior to 4.2 anyway. As things stood/stand, I can hand my N7 to my girlfriend for her to use, and she can use all the apps i've paid for. I'd have made an account for her on it now I've got 4.2, but given she won't be able to use any of the apps i've paid for, now I probably won't.

I'm not proposing some way for people to attach an app to their google account that they didn't pay for - i.e. by attaching their account to a device with the app already installed. Instead, I think there's scope for "local" apps, which were installed by the device owner and which can be used by other google accounts/users when they're using that specific device, but which won't be listed on their "my apps" google play store page.

"The other problem is one of disk space: if both users on the tablet install the same third-party app, that app is stored on the tablet twice. Especially on the lower-capacity Nexus tablets, space could quickly become a problem."

"To save storage space, Google Play downloads an APK only if it's not already installed by another user on the device. If the app is already installed, Google Play records the new user's installation in the usual way but doesn't download another copy of the app"

You beat me to the punch. This author lost all credibility for this article upon making that statement. The multiuser implementation is well done, so why are you whining about it? Maybe because you don't understand it as well as you think? Hmm.

I don't understand their negativity.

I've corrected the factually inaccurate bit of the article, thanks for the heads up.

I'm not sure why "criticism" equals "negativity"? Yes, it's great that Android has multi-user support. We said that. It's absolutely a huge step forward. But until as something as simple as sharing apps between users is worked out, there's still work to do.

I view criticism that is not constructive as being negativity, although I suppose you could say you were attempting to be constructive, so we'll assume it was constructive and approach it objectively.

There are several objective reasons for making apps not be shared between users who do not all own the app, and perhaps the biggest one is that Google would essentially be auto-pirating the app for end users. The way we've been trained on PCs, sharing is caring, but in the mobile world every user has their own independent list of apps that they own and are legally allowed to run, and with developers selling apps around $1 to $5, each license is affordable. In the PC world, if you pay $150 for a license of Microsoft Office, sharing it between a few users on the same computer makes some amount of sense. Especially considering that Android developers are just now starting to actually get paid for their work, we don't need a drastic change in that landscape.

But also, if you read the link that was put up by eldimo, you'll see that Google intends users to have completely separated devices, to the point where users can barely distinguish that it is shared. "In effect, each of the multiple users has his or her own Android device." This was intentional. It's also the simplest explanation possible for new users, which reduces confusion and complexity. For end users, Android is already complex enough without accidentally uninstalling each other's apps. I would rather Multiuser be implemented this way, but maybe that's just because I've done some development for Android in the past.

How thorough is the cleanup of a deleted user's account - file space, settings, etc.? When an admin account deletes a user from a Windows system, for example, there's a prompt for deleting everything, or leaving certain things in place; any such mechanisms on Android 4.2, or is it all or none? You'd have to do pretty thorough resource inventories, before and after, to figure it out.

I'm reluctant to muddy up my personal tablet by experimenting with this, and I have no reason to pursue it, but I'm thinking that this might be good to know for devices that are frequently, and dynamically, shared, such as those belonging to a school. Accounts might come and go pretty often - lingering fragmentation might be bad, eventually.

It's a difference between Android (and iOS, and BlackBerry, and, well, I don't know about Windows Phone/WinRT) and the way a lot of PC software is licensed. With Android, you own the app, regardless of the machine, so you can install the same app on every device you, the user, own. On a PC, you can (usually) install only one "seat" (a single PC), if you're being true to the licensing agreement and/or the program has some kind of call-home or network license manager.

As such, multiple users on an Android tablet would each have their own app catalogue. This isn't a bad thing: you don't have to wade through another user's collection of apps, nor do they see that, eg, you might've downloaded something embarassing (you don't want KamaSutraPro2000 showing up in your kid's profile next to Cat In The Hat).

Personally, I really like how, on Android, I can buy the same app for my phone and tablet and generally it'll work. It's to the point where I'll actively avoid "HD" or "Tablet" versions of given apps because it seems like gouging.

All true, but as i highlighted in the post i made before this one, I think there's scope for sharing apps locally between user accounts. I.e. having an "all users" apps area which all user accounts attached to the device can access, but which doesn't add the app to any of those users' app catalogues. I don't think this breaks the android/iOS app owner user model.

My downvote was because developers on Android struggle enough with getting users to buy their apps, that letting entire families share the app with one purchase would not help. I understand users would enjoy that, and perhaps it should be done, but I think Google is incentivizing Android development by helping developers get paid, and that will help end users as well.

That's fair enough - I didn't make the comment because I think Android devs are fat cats sat in ivory towers milking the proletariat for their hard earned cash. I was just making the point that from a user's point of view, families NOT being able to share an app between individuals on a single device is a retrograde step. It's also a different model from how they've likely always used their conventional computers. I.e. they can install office on the "family" computer, have a different user account for each family member, and not have to purchase 5 copies of office. My other argument was that this revenue stream is not one that was open to android devs prior to 4.2 anyway. As things stood/stand, I can hand my N7 to my girlfriend for her to use, and she can use all the apps i've paid for. I'd have made an account for her on it now I've got 4.2, but given she won't be able to use any of the apps i've paid for, now I probably won't.

I'm not proposing some way for people to attach an app to their google account that they didn't pay for - i.e. by attaching their account to a device with the app already installed. Instead, I think there's scope for "local" apps, which were installed by the device owner and which can be used by other google accounts/users when they're using that specific device, but which won't be listed on their "my apps" google play store page.

This is a reasonable point of view, I suppose, but I still stand behind the fact that Google is trying to do right by their development community so developers will have incentive to do right by the users. I also say that a copy of Microsoft Office is a significant investment, whereas buying the ad-free copy of Angry Birds is hardly comparable.

Multiple installs of the same app is a bit silly. Could do with an install for all users option, which would also protect against sharing of private data between accounts. I suppose google/devs miss out on revenue associated with multiple purchases of the same app for the same device running two accounts, but they weren't getting that revenue as things stood anyway.

EDIT: why the down-votes? Assuming subsequent comments are correct, and installing the same app across several accounts doesn't require more disk space, how does that solve the permissions issue? I.e. if you add a second account to your N7 for your little brother, and want to install a game you've paid for for him to play, can you do that without signing in to your google account? Or is the article wrong in that respect too?

My downvote was because developers on Android struggle enough with getting users to buy their apps, that letting entire families share the app with one purchase would not help. I understand users would enjoy that, and perhaps it should be done, but I think Google is incentivizing Android development by helping developers get paid, and that will help end users as well.

I ask this as someone who codes for a living - Do you really think families sharing a single device are going to buy multiple copies of the same app? How realistic an expectation is that? Allowing sharing of paid apps on a single device seems like a raw deal for devs certainly, but realistically how many people would actually buy the same thing 2 or more times on the same device?

They could use a system such as "a secondary account on my device can use my paid apps, but that user doesn't gain access to my paid apps on their device unless they buy them". That would seem the most fair to both users and devs.

The consequence of this approach is that my wife will not use my android devices under her account, she'll just occasionally do some stuff "as me", so she won't "feel at home" with the device or android, and hence, won't be as likely to purchase her own device (or apps) down the road.

Multiple installs of the same app is a bit silly. Could do with an install for all users option, which would also protect against sharing of private data between accounts. I suppose google/devs miss out on revenue associated with multiple purchases of the same app for the same device running two accounts, but they weren't getting that revenue as things stood anyway.

EDIT: why the down-votes? Assuming subsequent comments are correct, and installing the same app across several accounts doesn't require more disk space, how does that solve the permissions issue? I.e. if you add a second account to your N7 for your little brother, and want to install a game you've paid for for him to play, can you do that without signing in to your google account? Or is the article wrong in that respect too?

My downvote was because developers on Android struggle enough with getting users to buy their apps, that letting entire families share the app with one purchase would not help. I understand users would enjoy that, and perhaps it should be done, but I think Google is incentivizing Android development by helping developers get paid, and that will help end users as well.

I ask this as someone who codes for a living - Do you really think families sharing a single device are going to buy multiple copies of the same app? How realistic an expectation is that? Allowing sharing of paid apps on a single device seems like a raw deal for devs certainly, but realistically how many people would actually buy the same thing 2 or more times on the same device?

They could use a system such as "a secondary account on my device can use my paid apps, but that user doesn't gain access to my paid apps on their device unless they buy them". That would seem the most fair to both users and devs.

The consequence of this approach is that my wife will not use my android devices under her account, she'll just occasionally do some stuff "as me", so she won't "feel at home" with the device or android, and hence, won't be as likely to purchase her own device down the road.

But why won't you buy the app multiple times? They're dirt cheap. This isn't like buying a copy of Windows or Office by any stretch of the imagination... but I don't know. As you do development, I'm sure you understand this point of view, but for whatever personal reasons you won't invest in it.

This is a reasonable point of view, I suppose, but I still stand behind the fact that Google is trying to do right by their development community so developers will have incentive to do right by the users. I also say that a copy of Microsoft Office is a significant investment, whereas buying the ad-free copy of Angry Birds is hardly comparable.

I'm a developer myself - albeit not for android - so I'm all for doing right by our kind Agreed - there is a value/price difference between office and angry birds. However, the same would be true in the x86 windows space with a cheap £5 game too. I say x86, because I imagine metro/windows store works exactly like iTunes/google play. I also imagine MS are going to come in for some criticism for this too.

I think there's also a pragmatic argument at work here, as others have suggested. Multiple user accounts is a desirable feature - at least for some users. But hamstringing it in this way sort of breaks it completely, imo. Like I said, app segregation is the reason i won't use it, because i don't want to have to buy everything twice to let loved ones use my N7 and get the most out of it. I'll probably just continue to let them use my account, as I have up until this point. My only other option is to sign in to google play with my credentials on their user account, which sort of defeats the purpose. All they're really getting then is a customisable app draw - i.e. they can at least choose which apps they install - and customisable homescreens. They can't access their own gmail/drive etc.

"The other problem is one of disk space: if both users on the tablet install the same third-party app, that app is stored on the tablet twice. Especially on the lower-capacity Nexus tablets, space could quickly become a problem."

"To save storage space, Google Play downloads an APK only if it's not already installed by another user on the device. If the app is already installed, Google Play records the new user's installation in the usual way but doesn't download another copy of the app"

You beat me to the punch. This author lost all credibility for this article upon making that statement. The multiuser implementation is well done, so why are you whining about it? Maybe because you don't understand it as well as you think? Hmm.

I don't understand their negativity.

I've corrected the factually inaccurate bit of the article, thanks for the heads up.

I'm not sure why "criticism" equals "negativity"? Yes, it's great that Android has multi-user support. We said that. It's absolutely a huge step forward. But until as something as simple as sharing apps between users is worked out, there's still work to do.

I view criticism that is not constructive as being negativity, although I suppose you could say you were attempting to be constructive, so we'll assume it was constructive and approach it objectively.

There are several objective reasons for making apps not be shared between users who do not all own the app, and perhaps the biggest one is that Google would essentially be auto-pirating the app for end users. The way we've been trained on PCs, sharing is caring, but in the mobile world every user has their own independent list of apps that they own and are legally allowed to run, and with developers selling apps around $1 to $5, each license is affordable. In the PC world, if you pay $150 for a license of Microsoft Office, sharing it between a few users on the same computer makes some amount of sense. Especially considering that Android developers are just now starting to actually get paid for their work, we don't need a drastic change in that landscape.

But also, if you read the link that was put up by eldimo, you'll see that Google intends users to have completely separated devices, to the point where users can barely distinguish that it is shared. "In effect, each of the multiple users has his or her own Android device." This was intentional. It's also the simplest explanation possible for new users, which reduces confusion and complexity. For end users, Android is already complex enough without accidentally uninstalling each other's apps. I would rather Multiuser be implemented this way, but maybe that's just because I've done some development for Android in the past.

Oh, so because Google intended the feature to work that way, that means there's nothing wrong with it and it is completely above reproach! I understand now.

I think we're in agreement about the essential conflict: having multiuser support work the way it does in Android (theoretically) helps developers, and having it work the way it does in Windows/OS X/etc. is more friendly to users. What I think you'll find (as others have pointed out) is that, rather than pay a second time for things they already believe they "own," users will opt instead to either (1) pirate stuff or (2) not use the feature at all.

Is there any word on if/when Google will add Admin accounts? I'd like one account on my devices to be able to install apps / accept updates and changes, and have guest accounts unable to purchase in app stuff or install new applications.

"The other problem is one of disk space: if both users on the tablet install the same third-party app, that app is stored on the tablet twice. Especially on the lower-capacity Nexus tablets, space could quickly become a problem."

"To save storage space, Google Play downloads an APK only if it's not already installed by another user on the device. If the app is already installed, Google Play records the new user's installation in the usual way but doesn't download another copy of the app"

You beat me to the punch. This author lost all credibility for this article upon making that statement. The multiuser implementation is well done, so why are you whining about it? Maybe because you don't understand it as well as you think? Hmm.

I don't understand their negativity.

I've corrected the factually inaccurate bit of the article, thanks for the heads up.

I'm not sure why "criticism" equals "negativity"? Yes, it's great that Android has multi-user support. We said that. It's absolutely a huge step forward. But until as something as simple as sharing apps between users is worked out, there's still work to do.

I view criticism that is not constructive as being negativity, although I suppose you could say you were attempting to be constructive, so we'll assume it was constructive and approach it objectively.

There are several objective reasons for making apps not be shared between users who do not all own the app, and perhaps the biggest one is that Google would essentially be auto-pirating the app for end users. The way we've been trained on PCs, sharing is caring, but in the mobile world every user has their own independent list of apps that they own and are legally allowed to run, and with developers selling apps around $1 to $5, each license is affordable. In the PC world, if you pay $150 for a license of Microsoft Office, sharing it between a few users on the same computer makes some amount of sense. Especially considering that Android developers are just now starting to actually get paid for their work, we don't need a drastic change in that landscape.

But also, if you read the link that was put up by eldimo, you'll see that Google intends users to have completely separated devices, to the point where users can barely distinguish that it is shared. "In effect, each of the multiple users has his or her own Android device." This was intentional. It's also the simplest explanation possible for new users, which reduces confusion and complexity. For end users, Android is already complex enough without accidentally uninstalling each other's apps. I would rather Multiuser be implemented this way, but maybe that's just because I've done some development for Android in the past.

Oh, so because Google intended the feature to work that way, that means there's nothing wrong with it and it is completely above reproach! I understand now.

I think we're in agreement about the essential conflict: having multiuser support work the way it does in Android (theoretically) helps developers, and having it work the way it does in Windows/OS X/etc. is more friendly to users. What I think you'll find (as others have pointed out) is that, rather than pay a second time for things they already believe they "own," users will opt instead to either (1) pirate stuff or (2) not use the feature at all.

Unfortunately it does seem that the general consensus is they can't afford to buy $1 apps multiple times. I really don't understand this mindset... but it is common. If the feature is thoroughly avoided in 4.2, I imagine Google will work something out for 4.3... but I just don't think it should be necessary.

My downvote was because developers on Android struggle enough with getting users to buy their apps, that letting entire families share the app with one purchase would not help. I understand users would enjoy that, and perhaps it should be done, but I think Google is incentivizing Android development by helping developers get paid, and that will help end users as well.

For a developer's perspective, how does that situation differ from each family member sharing the same account on the tablet? It doesn't. It's still just one sale.

It isn't (much). But from a developer perspective, the thought of a school/company/org buying 50 tablets and a single "admin" logs unto all as owner, and share all also for all other users are terrifying. One license share by 50 different users - each with unique mail/calendar and so on.

Sharing an app between users is a can of worms, license wise.

Now, perhaps having an option of a anonymous "guest" user, without the possibility of logon to gmail, would help. If I could share selected apps with this anonymous guest user, I could lend tablet to people without worrying about them accessing my mail account and other personal stuff.

But why won't you buy the app multiple times? They're dirt cheap. This isn't like buying a copy of Windows or Office by any stretch of the imagination... but I don't know. As you do development, I'm sure you understand this point of view, but for whatever personal reasons you won't invest in it.

Because neither Windows nor iOs (home sharing) require me to, but Android does. As a user it feels insulting. While mobile apps don't cost as much as say the PC version of office, to be totally blunt, I personally get less value out of mobile apps than I do out of something like the PC version of office. I paid $3 for some games and felt I got my money's worth. Turning a $3 game into a $6 or $9 game, while not a vast sum of money, changes the value proposition.

As a user I'm not "investing" in anything, I'm buying disposable entertainment. As a coder I know that disposable entertainment cost someone a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, but that's how mobile apps are viewed by end users.

I guess my best analogy is this: My wife and I sometimes order a large hot chocolate and share it, but sometimes we buy two hot chocolates. If the cafe charged use twice as much to share the large hot chocolate they aren't creating an incentive for me to buy more hot chocolate, they're creating an incentive for me to go to the place next door.

Unfortunately it does seem that the general consensus is they can't afford to buy $1 apps multiple times. I really don't understand this mindset... but it is common. If the feature is thoroughly avoided in 4.2, I imagine Google will work something out for 4.3... but I just don't think it should be necessary.

I agree that, objectively, that's a bit ridiculous. :-)

The question is, where is that line drawn? If I buy a paperback for $8, am I cheap because I let my girlfriend read it without buying a second copy? It's a tough distinction to make.

But why won't you buy the app multiple times? They're dirt cheap. This isn't like buying a copy of Windows or Office by any stretch of the imagination... but I don't know. As you do development, I'm sure you understand this point of view, but for whatever personal reasons you won't invest in it.

Because neither Windows nor iOs (home sharing) require me to, but Android does. As a user it feels insulting. While mobile apps don't cost as much as say the PC version of office, to be totally blunt, I personally get less value out of mobile apps than I do out of something like the PC version of office. I paid $3 for some games and felt I got my money's worth. Turning a $3 game into a $6 or $9 game, while not a vast sum of money, changes the value proposition.

As a user I'm not "investing" in anything, I'm buying disposable entertainment. As a coder I know that disposable entertainment cost someone a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, but that's how mobile apps are viewed by end users.

I guess my best analogy is this: My wife and I sometimes order a large hot chocolate and share it, but sometimes we buy two hot chocolates. If the cafe charged use twice as much to share the large hot chocolate they aren't creating an incentive for me to buy more hot chocolate, they're creating an incentive for me to go to the place next door.

Yeah. and as clarification, I meant investing in that point-of-view, perspective, philosophy, whatever you want to call it.